Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 721 | control, N = 361 | treatment, N = 361 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 72 | 50.90 ± 12.59 (25 - 74) | 50.74 ± 13.31 (25 - 74) | 51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72) | 0.912 |
gender | 72 | 0.795 | |||
f | 51 (71%) | 25 (69%) | 26 (72%) | ||
m | 21 (29%) | 11 (31%) | 10 (28%) | ||
occupation | 72 | 0.967 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 7 (9.7%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.3%) | 3 (8.3%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
other | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
part_time | 14 (19%) | 7 (19%) | 7 (19%) | ||
retired | 15 (21%) | 7 (19%) | 8 (22%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (31%) | 12 (33%) | 10 (28%) | ||
marital | 72 | 0.792 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
divore | 9 (12%) | 6 (17%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
married | 15 (21%) | 7 (19%) | 8 (22%) | ||
none | 41 (57%) | 20 (56%) | 21 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.2%) | 2 (5.6%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (2.8%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
edu | 72 | 0.989 | |||
bachelor | 21 (29%) | 9 (25%) | 12 (33%) | ||
diploma | 12 (17%) | 7 (19%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.2%) | 2 (5.6%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.3%) | 3 (8.3%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
primary | 5 (6.9%) | 2 (5.6%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 8 (11%) | 4 (11%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (21%) | 8 (22%) | 7 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
fam_income | 72 | 0.959 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.6%) | 1 (2.8%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (5.6%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (6.9%) | 2 (5.6%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (8.3%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 11 (15%) | 6 (17%) | 5 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (12%) | 6 (17%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (9.7%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (9.7%) | 3 (8.3%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (12%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 72 | 62 (86%) | 32 (89%) | 30 (83%) | 0.496 |
onset_duration | 72 | 15.18 ± 11.55 (0 - 56) | 16.56 ± 12.92 (1 - 56) | 13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35) | 0.314 |
onset_age | 72 | 35.72 ± 13.98 (14 - 64) | 34.17 ± 13.18 (14 - 58) | 37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64) | 0.352 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 721 | control, N = 361 | treatment, N = 361 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 72 | 3.12 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.11 ± 1.28 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 0.925 |
recovery_stage_b | 72 | 17.97 ± 2.63 (9 - 23) | 17.92 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23) | 0.859 |
ras_confidence | 72 | 30.36 ± 4.80 (19 - 43) | 29.78 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43) | 0.306 |
ras_willingness | 72 | 12.10 ± 1.96 (7 - 15) | 11.92 ± 1.87 (9 - 15) | 12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15) | 0.438 |
ras_goal | 72 | 17.50 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 17.47 ± 2.97 (12 - 24) | 17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24) | 0.938 |
ras_reliance | 72 | 13.21 ± 2.83 (8 - 20) | 12.97 ± 2.61 (8 - 18) | 13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20) | 0.483 |
ras_domination | 72 | 9.92 ± 2.25 (3 - 15) | 10.39 ± 1.95 (6 - 15) | 9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14) | 0.075 |
symptom | 72 | 30.11 ± 9.82 (14 - 56) | 31.00 ± 9.62 (14 - 52) | 29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56) | 0.446 |
slof_work | 72 | 22.72 ± 4.92 (10 - 30) | 22.69 ± 4.50 (15 - 30) | 22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30) | 0.962 |
slof_relationship | 72 | 25.74 ± 6.04 (11 - 35) | 25.53 ± 6.26 (13 - 35) | 25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.772 |
satisfaction | 72 | 20.69 ± 6.85 (5 - 32) | 19.25 ± 6.53 (5 - 29) | 22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32) | 0.073 |
mhc_emotional | 72 | 11.19 ± 3.85 (3 - 18) | 10.78 ± 3.43 (3 - 17) | 11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18) | 0.362 |
mhc_social | 72 | 15.03 ± 5.45 (6 - 30) | 15.31 ± 5.49 (7 - 30) | 14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26) | 0.668 |
mhc_psychological | 72 | 22.26 ± 6.08 (6 - 36) | 21.89 ± 5.72 (10 - 36) | 22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 0.604 |
resilisnce | 72 | 16.50 ± 4.53 (6 - 27) | 16.17 ± 4.34 (6 - 24) | 16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27) | 0.536 |
social_provision | 72 | 13.65 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 13.28 ± 2.53 (8 - 20) | 14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20) | 0.284 |
els_value_living | 72 | 17.25 ± 2.94 (5 - 25) | 16.61 ± 2.36 (12 - 22) | 17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 0.065 |
els_life_fulfill | 72 | 12.76 ± 3.33 (4 - 20) | 11.78 ± 3.07 (5 - 17) | 13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20) | 0.011 |
els | 72 | 30.01 ± 5.64 (9 - 45) | 28.39 ± 4.48 (20 - 36) | 31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.013 |
social_connect | 72 | 26.97 ± 9.46 (8 - 48) | 27.61 ± 8.17 (8 - 45) | 26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48) | 0.570 |
shs_agency | 72 | 14.47 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 13.89 ± 4.57 (3 - 21) | 15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24) | 0.320 |
shs_pathway | 72 | 16.61 ± 3.95 (4 - 24) | 16.22 ± 3.80 (8 - 24) | 17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23) | 0.407 |
shs | 72 | 31.08 ± 8.43 (7 - 47) | 30.11 ± 8.02 (13 - 45) | 32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47) | 0.331 |
esteem | 72 | 12.65 ± 1.50 (10 - 18) | 12.83 ± 1.56 (10 - 18) | 12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.311 |
mlq_search | 72 | 14.92 ± 3.33 (3 - 21) | 14.81 ± 3.12 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 0.780 |
mlq_presence | 72 | 13.50 ± 4.12 (3 - 21) | 13.47 ± 3.53 (5 - 20) | 13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21) | 0.955 |
mlq | 72 | 28.42 ± 6.65 (6 - 42) | 28.28 ± 5.87 (12 - 40) | 28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42) | 0.861 |
empower | 72 | 19.51 ± 4.12 (6 - 28) | 19.11 ± 3.76 (11 - 24) | 19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28) | 0.410 |
ismi_resistance | 72 | 14.60 ± 2.66 (5 - 20) | 14.31 ± 2.24 (11 - 19) | 14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 0.356 |
ismi_discrimation | 72 | 11.29 ± 3.21 (5 - 19) | 12.22 ± 2.83 (5 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19) | 0.013 |
sss_affective | 72 | 9.97 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.50 ± 3.47 (3 - 18) | 9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 0.244 |
sss_behavior | 72 | 9.65 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 10.39 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 0.115 |
sss_cognitive | 72 | 8.31 ± 3.98 (3 - 18) | 8.61 ± 4.20 (3 - 18) | 8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.519 |
sss | 72 | 27.93 ± 10.90 (9 - 54) | 29.50 ± 10.49 (9 - 54) | 26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54) | 0.224 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.11 | 0.203 | 2.71, 3.51 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.028 | 0.287 | -0.535, 0.590 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.158 | 0.289 | -0.409, 0.725 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.187 | 0.413 | -0.624, 0.997 | 0.654 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.448 | 17.0, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.111 | 0.633 | -1.13, 1.35 | 0.861 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.368 | 0.606 | -1.55, 0.820 | 0.547 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.895 | 0.866 | -0.802, 2.59 | 0.306 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.839 | 28.1, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.17 | 1.186 | -1.16, 3.49 | 0.328 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.349 | 0.818 | -1.26, 1.95 | 0.672 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.269 | 1.171 | -2.03, 2.56 | 0.819 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.333 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.361 | 0.470 | -0.561, 1.28 | 0.445 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.631 | 0.321 | -1.26, -0.002 | 0.056 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.469 | 0.459 | -0.431, 1.37 | 0.313 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.523 | 16.4, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.056 | 0.739 | -1.39, 1.50 | 0.940 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.908 | 0.552 | -1.99, 0.174 | 0.107 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.52 | 0.790 | -0.027, 3.07 | 0.060 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.459 | 12.1, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.472 | 0.649 | -0.800, 1.74 | 0.469 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.453 | 0.408 | -0.348, 1.25 | 0.274 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.615 | 0.585 | -0.531, 1.76 | 0.299 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.367 | 9.67, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.944 | 0.520 | -1.96, 0.074 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.566 | 0.468 | -1.48, 0.351 | 0.232 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.37 | 0.669 | 0.060, 2.68 | 0.046 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.0 | 1.638 | 27.8, 34.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.78 | 2.316 | -6.32, 2.76 | 0.445 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.097 | 1.183 | -2.22, 2.42 | 0.935 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.738 | 1.695 | -4.06, 2.58 | 0.665 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.7 | 0.826 | 21.1, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.056 | 1.168 | -2.23, 2.34 | 0.962 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.728 | 0.619 | -1.94, 0.486 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.563 | 0.887 | -2.30, 1.17 | 0.529 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.5 | 0.998 | 23.6, 27.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.417 | 1.412 | -2.35, 3.18 | 0.769 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.06 | 0.900 | -2.82, 0.703 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.656 | 1.288 | -1.87, 3.18 | 0.614 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.161 | 17.0, 21.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.89 | 1.642 | -0.330, 6.11 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.736 | 1.184 | -1.59, 3.06 | 0.537 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 1.695 | -4.51, 2.13 | 0.486 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.636 | 9.53, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.833 | 0.900 | -0.930, 2.60 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.468 | 0.542 | -0.594, 1.53 | 0.393 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.13 | 0.775 | -2.65, 0.389 | 0.153 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.942 | 13.5, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.556 | 1.332 | -3.17, 2.05 | 0.678 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.04 | 0.904 | -0.728, 2.82 | 0.255 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.55 | 1.294 | -4.09, 0.986 | 0.238 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.9 | 1.065 | 19.8, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.750 | 1.507 | -2.20, 3.70 | 0.620 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.607 | 1.024 | -1.40, 2.61 | 0.556 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.62 | 1.465 | -4.50, 1.25 | 0.274 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.721 | 14.8, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.667 | 1.020 | -1.33, 2.67 | 0.515 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.208 | 0.719 | -1.20, 1.62 | 0.774 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.343 | 1.029 | -1.67, 2.36 | 0.741 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.502 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.750 | 0.710 | -0.642, 2.14 | 0.294 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.930 | 0.557 | -2.02, 0.161 | 0.101 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.906 | 0.796 | -0.655, 2.47 | 0.261 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.488 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.28 | 0.690 | -0.075, 2.63 | 0.068 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.285 | 0.450 | -0.597, 1.17 | 0.530 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.204 | 0.644 | -1.47, 1.06 | 0.752 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.517 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.97 | 0.731 | 0.539, 3.41 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.924 | 0.488 | -0.033, 1.88 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.911 | 0.699 | -2.28, 0.459 | 0.200 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.075 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 0.903 | 26.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.25 | 1.277 | 0.748, 5.75 | 0.013 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.18 | 0.771 | -0.332, 2.69 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 1.104 | -3.24, 1.08 | 0.334 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.071 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 1.582 | 24.5, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.28 | 2.237 | -5.66, 3.11 | 0.570 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.808 | 1.144 | -1.44, 3.05 | 0.484 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.995 | 1.639 | -4.21, 2.22 | 0.547 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.826 | 12.3, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.17 | 1.168 | -1.12, 3.46 | 0.321 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.277 | 0.774 | -1.24, 1.79 | 0.722 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.469 | 1.107 | -1.70, 2.64 | 0.674 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.657 | 14.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.778 | 0.929 | -1.04, 2.60 | 0.405 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.345 | 0.590 | -0.812, 1.50 | 0.562 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.363 | 0.845 | -2.02, 1.29 | 0.670 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 1.399 | 27.4, 32.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.94 | 1.978 | -1.93, 5.82 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.625 | 1.235 | -1.80, 3.05 | 0.616 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.112 | 1.768 | -3.35, 3.58 | 0.950 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.235 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.361 | 0.333 | -1.01, 0.291 | 0.281 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.177 | 0.351 | -0.512, 0.866 | 0.618 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.155 | 0.502 | -0.828, 1.14 | 0.759 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.564 | 13.7, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.222 | 0.798 | -1.34, 1.79 | 0.781 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.382 | 0.665 | -1.69, 0.922 | 0.568 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.348 | 0.951 | -1.52, 2.21 | 0.716 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.675 | 12.1, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.056 | 0.955 | -1.82, 1.93 | 0.954 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.108 | 0.735 | -1.55, 1.33 | 0.884 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.235 | 1.052 | -1.83, 2.30 | 0.824 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.125 | 26.1, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.278 | 1.591 | -2.84, 3.40 | 0.862 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.493 | 1.258 | -2.96, 1.97 | 0.697 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.579 | 1.800 | -2.95, 4.11 | 0.749 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.671 | 17.8, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.806 | 0.948 | -1.05, 2.66 | 0.398 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.261 | 0.582 | -1.40, 0.880 | 0.656 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.404 | 0.833 | -2.04, 1.23 | 0.630 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.419 | 13.5, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.583 | 0.593 | -0.578, 1.74 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.182 | 0.553 | -0.901, 1.27 | 0.743 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.313 | 0.790 | -1.86, 1.24 | 0.693 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.525 | 11.2, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.86 | 0.742 | -3.32, -0.406 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.510 | 0.501 | -1.49, 0.472 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.933 | 0.717 | -0.472, 2.34 | 0.200 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.061 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.616 | 9.29, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.06 | 0.871 | -2.76, 0.652 | 0.229 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.214 | 0.505 | -0.776, 1.20 | 0.674 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 0.723 | -2.49, 0.339 | 0.143 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.626 | 9.16, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.47 | 0.885 | -3.21, 0.263 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.283 | 0.617 | -1.49, 0.926 | 0.648 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.446 | 0.883 | -2.18, 1.28 | 0.616 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.61 | 0.651 | 7.34, 9.89 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.611 | 0.920 | -2.41, 1.19 | 0.509 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.509 | 0.029, 2.02 | 0.051 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.83 | 0.729 | -3.25, -0.397 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.5 | 1.760 | 26.1, 32.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.14 | 2.489 | -8.02, 1.74 | 0.211 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.05 | 1.301 | -1.50, 3.60 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.37 | 1.863 | -7.02, 0.284 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.71, 3.51], t(105) = 15.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.59], t(105) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.73], t(105) = 0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.00], t(105) = 0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.04, 18.79], t(105) = 40.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.35], t(105) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.82], t(105) = -0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.59], t(105) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.78 (95% CI [28.13, 31.42], t(105) = 35.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.49], t(105) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.95], t(105) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.56], t(105) = 0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.26, 12.57], t(105) = 35.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.28], t(105) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -2.17e-03], t(105) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.08e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.37], t(105) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.47 (95% CI [16.45, 18.50], t(105) = 33.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.50], t(105) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(105) = -1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.07], t(105) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-8.47e-03, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.07, 13.87], t(105) = 28.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.74], t(105) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(105) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.76], t(105) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.39 (95% CI [9.67, 11.11], t(105) = 28.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.07], t(105) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.35], t(105) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [0.06, 2.68], t(105) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.03, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.79, 34.21], t(105) = 18.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-6.32, 2.76], t(105) = -0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.42], t(105) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.06, 2.58], t(105) = -0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.69 (95% CI [21.08, 24.31], t(105) = 27.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.23, 2.34], t(105) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.49], t(105) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(105) = -0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.53 (95% CI [23.57, 27.48], t(105) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-2.35, 3.18], t(105) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.70], t(105) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.18], t(105) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.25 (95% CI [16.97, 21.53], t(105) = 16.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.89, 95% CI [-0.33, 6.11], t(105) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.06], t(105) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.51, 2.13], t(105) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.78 (95% CI [9.53, 12.02], t(105) = 16.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.60], t(105) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.53], t(105) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.39], t(105) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.31 (95% CI [13.46, 17.15], t(105) = 16.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-3.17, 2.05], t(105) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.82], t(105) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-4.09, 0.99], t(105) = -1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.89 (95% CI [19.80, 23.98], t(105) = 20.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-2.20, 3.70], t(105) = 0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.61], t(105) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.62, 95% CI [-4.50, 1.25], t(105) = -1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.17 (95% CI [14.75, 17.58], t(105) = 22.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.67], t(105) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.62], t(105) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.67, 2.36], t(105) = 0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.28 (95% CI [12.29, 14.26], t(105) = 26.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.14], t(105) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.16], t(105) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.47], t(105) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.61 (95% CI [15.65, 17.57], t(105) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.63], t(105) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.88])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.17], t(105) = 0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.06], t(105) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.78 (95% CI [10.76, 12.79], t(105) = 22.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.97, 95% CI [0.54, 3.41], t(105) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.17, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.88], t(105) = 1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.46], t(105) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.39 (95% CI [26.62, 30.16], t(105) = 31.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.25, 95% CI [0.75, 5.75], t(105) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.13, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.69], t(105) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-3.24, 1.08], t(105) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.61 (95% CI [24.51, 30.71], t(105) = 17.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-5.66, 3.11], t(105) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.44, 3.05], t(105) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-4.21, 2.22], t(105) = -0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.27, 15.51], t(105) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.46], t(105) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.79], t(105) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.64], t(105) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.22 (95% CI [14.93, 17.51], t(105) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.60], t(105) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.50], t(105) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.02, 1.29], t(105) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.37, 32.85], t(105) = 21.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-1.93, 5.82], t(105) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.05], t(105) = 0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.35, 3.58], t(105) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.83 (95% CI [12.37, 13.29], t(105) = 54.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.29], t(105) = -1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.87], t(105) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.14], t(105) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.81 (95% CI [13.70, 15.91], t(105) = 26.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.79], t(105) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.92], t(105) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.21], t(105) = 0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.86e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.47 (95% CI [12.15, 14.80], t(105) = 19.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.93], t(105) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.33], t(105) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.83, 2.30], t(105) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [26.07, 30.48], t(105) = 25.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-2.84, 3.40], t(105) = 0.17, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.96, 1.97], t(105) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-2.95, 4.11], t(105) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.80, 20.43], t(105) = 28.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.66], t(105) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.88], t(105) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.23], t(105) = -0.49, p = 0.628; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.48, 15.13], t(105) = 34.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.74], t(105) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.27], t(105) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.24], t(105) = -0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.19, 13.25], t(105) = 23.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.32, -0.41], t(105) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(105) = -1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.34], t(105) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.50 (95% CI [9.29, 11.71], t(105) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.65], t(105) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.20], t(105) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.34], t(105) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.39 (95% CI [9.16, 11.62], t(105) = 16.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.21, 0.26], t(105) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.93], t(105) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.28], t(105) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.61 (95% CI [7.34, 9.89], t(105) = 13.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.41, 1.19], t(105) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(105) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [7.45e-03, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.40], t(105) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.50 (95% CI [26.05, 32.95], t(105) = 16.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.14, 95% CI [-8.02, 1.74], t(105) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.60], t(105) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.02, 0.28], t(105) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 357.680 | 365.809 | -175.840 | 351.680 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 361.877 | 378.135 | -174.939 | 349.877 | 1.803 | 3 | 0.614 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 530.534 | 538.663 | -262.267 | 524.534 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 534.928 | 551.185 | -261.464 | 522.928 | 1.606 | 3 | 0.658 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 649.416 | 657.545 | -321.708 | 643.416 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 653.452 | 669.709 | -320.726 | 641.452 | 1.964 | 3 | 0.580 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 446.540 | 454.668 | -220.270 | 440.540 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 447.281 | 463.538 | -217.640 | 435.281 | 5.259 | 3 | 0.154 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 552.330 | 560.458 | -273.165 | 546.330 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 553.875 | 570.132 | -270.938 | 541.875 | 4.454 | 3 | 0.216 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 515.631 | 523.760 | -254.816 | 509.631 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 512.986 | 529.243 | -250.493 | 500.986 | 8.645 | 3 | 0.034 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 487.053 | 495.181 | -240.526 | 481.053 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 487.559 | 503.816 | -237.780 | 475.559 | 5.493 | 3 | 0.139 |
symptom | null | 3 | 775.303 | 783.432 | -384.652 | 769.303 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 780.214 | 796.472 | -384.107 | 768.214 | 1.089 | 3 | 0.780 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 630.385 | 638.514 | -312.193 | 624.385 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 630.971 | 647.228 | -309.485 | 618.971 | 5.414 | 3 | 0.144 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 682.277 | 690.406 | -338.138 | 676.277 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 686.466 | 702.723 | -337.233 | 674.466 | 1.811 | 3 | 0.613 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 725.915 | 734.043 | -359.957 | 719.915 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 728.706 | 744.963 | -358.353 | 716.706 | 3.208 | 3 | 0.361 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 578.896 | 587.025 | -286.448 | 572.896 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 582.329 | 598.586 | -285.165 | 570.329 | 2.567 | 3 | 0.463 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 674.294 | 682.422 | -334.147 | 668.294 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 677.983 | 694.241 | -332.992 | 665.983 | 2.310 | 3 | 0.511 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 700.825 | 708.953 | -347.412 | 694.825 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 705.456 | 721.713 | -346.728 | 693.456 | 1.369 | 3 | 0.713 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 616.732 | 624.861 | -305.366 | 610.732 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 621.439 | 637.696 | -304.720 | 609.439 | 1.293 | 3 | 0.731 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 547.476 | 555.604 | -270.738 | 541.476 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 548.289 | 564.546 | -268.145 | 536.289 | 5.187 | 3 | 0.159 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 527.024 | 535.153 | -260.512 | 521.024 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 529.191 | 545.449 | -258.596 | 517.191 | 3.833 | 3 | 0.280 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 547.162 | 555.290 | -270.581 | 541.162 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 543.786 | 560.043 | -265.893 | 531.786 | 9.376 | 3 | 0.025 |
els | null | 3 | 662.240 | 670.369 | -328.120 | 656.240 | |||
els | random | 6 | 660.282 | 676.539 | -324.141 | 648.282 | 7.958 | 3 | 0.047 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 767.704 | 775.833 | -380.852 | 761.704 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 772.635 | 788.892 | -380.317 | 760.635 | 1.070 | 3 | 0.784 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 643.581 | 651.709 | -318.790 | 637.581 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 647.173 | 663.430 | -317.587 | 635.173 | 2.408 | 3 | 0.492 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 588.255 | 596.384 | -291.128 | 582.255 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 593.323 | 609.580 | -290.661 | 581.323 | 0.933 | 3 | 0.818 |
shs | null | 3 | 755.545 | 763.674 | -374.773 | 749.545 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 759.844 | 776.101 | -373.922 | 747.844 | 1.701 | 3 | 0.637 |
esteem | null | 3 | 393.117 | 401.246 | -193.559 | 387.117 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 396.809 | 413.066 | -192.404 | 384.809 | 2.309 | 3 | 0.511 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 572.674 | 580.803 | -283.337 | 566.674 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 578.125 | 594.383 | -283.063 | 566.125 | 0.549 | 3 | 0.908 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 606.841 | 614.969 | -300.420 | 600.841 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 612.766 | 629.023 | -300.383 | 600.766 | 0.074 | 3 | 0.995 |
mlq | null | 3 | 722.160 | 730.289 | -358.080 | 716.160 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 727.899 | 744.156 | -357.950 | 715.899 | 0.261 | 3 | 0.967 |
empower | null | 3 | 591.475 | 599.603 | -292.737 | 585.475 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 595.396 | 611.653 | -291.698 | 583.396 | 2.079 | 3 | 0.556 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 513.826 | 521.954 | -253.913 | 507.826 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 518.825 | 535.082 | -253.412 | 506.825 | 1.001 | 3 | 0.801 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 548.476 | 556.604 | -271.238 | 542.476 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 547.759 | 564.016 | -267.880 | 535.759 | 6.717 | 3 | 0.081 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 572.066 | 580.195 | -283.033 | 566.066 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 572.460 | 588.717 | -280.230 | 560.460 | 5.606 | 3 | 0.132 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 588.289 | 596.418 | -291.145 | 582.289 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 589.165 | 605.422 | -288.583 | 577.165 | 5.124 | 3 | 0.163 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 582.787 | 590.916 | -288.394 | 576.787 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 581.159 | 597.416 | -284.579 | 569.159 | 7.628 | 3 | 0.054 |
sss | null | 3 | 798.448 | 806.577 | -396.224 | 792.448 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 797.923 | 814.180 | -392.961 | 785.923 | 6.526 | 3 | 0.089 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 36 | 3.11 ± 1.22 | 36 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 0.923 | -0.028 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.27 ± 1.20 | -0.160 | 19 | 3.48 ± 1.20 | -0.348 | 0.577 | -0.216 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 36 | 17.92 ± 2.69 | 36 | 18.03 ± 2.69 | 0.861 | -0.054 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.55 ± 2.60 | 0.179 | 19 | 18.56 ± 2.60 | -0.257 | 0.230 | -0.490 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 36 | 29.78 ± 5.03 | 36 | 30.94 ± 5.03 | 0.328 | -0.436 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.13 ± 4.43 | -0.130 | 19 | 31.56 ± 4.39 | -0.231 | 0.312 | -0.537 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 36 | 11.92 ± 2.00 | 36 | 12.28 ± 2.00 | 0.445 | -0.345 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.29 ± 1.75 | 0.603 | 19 | 12.12 ± 1.74 | 0.155 | 0.140 | -0.793 |
ras_goal | 1st | 36 | 17.47 ± 3.14 | 36 | 17.53 ± 3.14 | 0.940 | -0.031 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.56 ± 2.82 | 0.500 | 19 | 18.14 ± 2.80 | -0.338 | 0.083 | -0.869 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 36 | 12.97 ± 2.75 | 36 | 13.44 ± 2.75 | 0.469 | -0.356 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.43 ± 2.37 | -0.342 | 19 | 14.51 ± 2.34 | -0.805 | 0.153 | -0.820 |
ras_domination | 1st | 36 | 10.39 ± 2.20 | 36 | 9.44 ± 2.20 | 0.072 | 0.601 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.82 ± 2.10 | 0.360 | 19 | 10.25 ± 2.09 | -0.513 | 0.526 | -0.272 |
symptom | 1st | 36 | 31.00 ± 9.83 | 36 | 29.22 ± 9.83 | 0.445 | 0.467 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.10 ± 8.11 | -0.026 | 19 | 28.58 ± 7.99 | 0.168 | 0.331 | 0.661 |
slof_work | 1st | 36 | 22.69 ± 4.96 | 36 | 22.75 ± 4.96 | 0.962 | -0.028 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.97 ± 4.11 | 0.365 | 19 | 21.46 ± 4.06 | 0.647 | 0.699 | 0.255 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 36 | 25.53 ± 5.99 | 36 | 25.94 ± 5.99 | 0.769 | -0.142 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.47 ± 5.17 | 0.363 | 19 | 25.54 ± 5.12 | 0.139 | 0.517 | -0.367 |
satisfaction | 1st | 36 | 19.25 ± 6.97 | 36 | 22.14 ± 6.97 | 0.082 | -0.744 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.99 ± 6.21 | -0.190 | 19 | 21.69 ± 6.16 | 0.117 | 0.393 | -0.438 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 36 | 10.78 ± 3.82 | 36 | 11.61 ± 3.82 | 0.357 | -0.475 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.25 ± 3.25 | -0.267 | 19 | 10.95 ± 3.21 | 0.378 | 0.774 | 0.170 |
mhc_social | 1st | 36 | 15.31 ± 5.65 | 36 | 14.75 ± 5.65 | 0.678 | 0.188 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.35 ± 4.96 | -0.354 | 19 | 14.24 ± 4.91 | 0.172 | 0.186 | 0.714 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 36 | 21.89 ± 6.39 | 36 | 22.64 ± 6.39 | 0.620 | -0.225 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.50 ± 5.61 | -0.182 | 19 | 21.62 ± 5.56 | 0.304 | 0.626 | 0.262 |
resilisnce | 1st | 36 | 16.17 ± 4.33 | 36 | 16.83 ± 4.33 | 0.515 | -0.283 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.37 ± 3.83 | -0.088 | 19 | 17.38 ± 3.80 | -0.234 | 0.411 | -0.429 |
social_provision | 1st | 36 | 13.28 ± 3.01 | 36 | 14.03 ± 3.01 | 0.294 | -0.408 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.35 ± 2.75 | 0.506 | 19 | 14.00 ± 2.73 | 0.013 | 0.062 | -0.901 |
els_value_living | 1st | 36 | 16.61 ± 2.93 | 36 | 17.89 ± 2.93 | 0.068 | -0.872 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.90 ± 2.54 | -0.194 | 19 | 17.97 ± 2.52 | -0.055 | 0.188 | -0.733 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 36 | 11.78 ± 3.10 | 36 | 13.75 ± 3.10 | 0.009 | -1.239 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.70 ± 2.71 | -0.581 | 19 | 13.76 ± 2.68 | -0.008 | 0.222 | -0.667 |
els | 1st | 36 | 28.39 ± 5.42 | 36 | 31.64 ± 5.42 | 0.013 | -1.301 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.57 ± 4.62 | -0.472 | 19 | 31.74 ± 4.57 | -0.040 | 0.143 | -0.869 |
social_connect | 1st | 36 | 27.61 ± 9.49 | 36 | 26.33 ± 9.49 | 0.570 | 0.347 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.42 ± 7.83 | -0.220 | 19 | 26.15 ± 7.72 | 0.051 | 0.364 | 0.617 |
shs_agency | 1st | 36 | 13.89 ± 4.96 | 36 | 15.06 ± 4.96 | 0.321 | -0.463 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.17 ± 4.32 | -0.110 | 19 | 15.80 ± 4.28 | -0.296 | 0.238 | -0.649 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 36 | 16.22 ± 3.94 | 36 | 17.00 ± 3.94 | 0.405 | -0.406 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 3.40 | -0.180 | 19 | 16.98 ± 3.36 | 0.009 | 0.703 | -0.216 |
shs | 1st | 36 | 30.11 ± 8.39 | 36 | 32.06 ± 8.39 | 0.329 | -0.485 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.74 ± 7.21 | -0.156 | 19 | 32.79 ± 7.13 | -0.184 | 0.373 | -0.513 |
esteem | 1st | 36 | 12.83 ± 1.41 | 36 | 12.47 ± 1.41 | 0.280 | 0.297 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.01 ± 1.41 | -0.145 | 19 | 12.80 ± 1.41 | -0.273 | 0.648 | 0.169 |
mlq_search | 1st | 36 | 14.81 ± 3.39 | 36 | 15.03 ± 3.39 | 0.781 | -0.101 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.42 ± 3.15 | 0.173 | 19 | 14.99 ± 3.13 | 0.015 | 0.572 | -0.258 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 36 | 13.47 ± 4.05 | 36 | 13.53 ± 4.05 | 0.954 | -0.023 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.36 ± 3.68 | 0.044 | 19 | 13.65 ± 3.65 | -0.052 | 0.805 | -0.120 |
mlq | 1st | 36 | 28.28 ± 6.75 | 36 | 28.56 ± 6.75 | 0.862 | -0.067 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.78 ± 6.18 | 0.119 | 19 | 28.64 ± 6.14 | -0.020 | 0.665 | -0.206 |
empower | 1st | 36 | 19.11 ± 4.02 | 36 | 19.92 ± 4.02 | 0.398 | -0.427 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.85 ± 3.44 | 0.138 | 19 | 19.25 ± 3.40 | 0.352 | 0.715 | -0.213 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 36 | 14.31 ± 2.51 | 36 | 14.89 ± 2.51 | 0.327 | -0.313 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.49 ± 2.42 | -0.098 | 19 | 14.76 ± 2.41 | 0.070 | 0.728 | -0.145 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 36 | 12.22 ± 3.15 | 36 | 10.36 ± 3.15 | 0.014 | 1.140 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.71 ± 2.76 | 0.312 | 19 | 10.78 ± 2.73 | -0.259 | 0.293 | 0.568 |
sss_affective | 1st | 36 | 10.50 ± 3.70 | 36 | 9.44 ± 3.70 | 0.229 | 0.647 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.71 ± 3.12 | -0.131 | 19 | 8.58 ± 3.09 | 0.530 | 0.034 | 1.307 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 36 | 10.39 ± 3.76 | 36 | 8.92 ± 3.76 | 0.100 | 0.730 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.11 ± 3.32 | 0.140 | 19 | 8.19 ± 3.29 | 0.362 | 0.073 | 0.951 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 36 | 8.61 ± 3.90 | 36 | 8.00 ± 3.90 | 0.509 | 0.372 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.64 ± 3.27 | -0.625 | 19 | 7.20 ± 3.22 | 0.486 | 0.021 | 1.483 |
sss | 1st | 36 | 29.50 ± 10.56 | 36 | 26.36 ± 10.56 | 0.211 | 0.749 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.55 ± 8.75 | -0.250 | 19 | 24.04 ± 8.62 | 0.554 | 0.021 | 1.553 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(99.44) = 0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.60)
2st
t(106.53) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.97)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(96.10) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.37)
2st
t(106.56) = 1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.66)
ras_confidence
1st
t(81.83) = 0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.53)
2st
t(106.18) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.37 to 4.24)
ras_willingness
1st
t(81.51) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.30)
2st
t(106.03) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.94)
ras_goal
1st
t(84.30) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.53)
2st
t(106.85) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.21 to 3.36)
ras_reliance
1st
t(79.55) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.76)
2st
t(104.67) = 1.44, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)
ras_domination
1st
t(92.56) = -1.82, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.09)
2st
t(106.72) = 0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.76)
symptom
1st
t(75.96) = -0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.39 to 2.83)
2st
t(98.85) = -0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.63 to 2.60)
slof_work
1st
t(76.47) = 0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.27 to 2.38)
2st
t(100.04) = -0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.10 to 2.09)
slof_relationship
1st
t(79.84) = 0.30, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.39 to 3.23)
2st
t(104.93) = 0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.20 to 4.34)
satisfaction
1st
t(83.15) = 1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.38 to 6.16)
2st
t(106.63) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.23 to 5.63)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(78.63) = 0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.62)
2st
t(103.67) = -0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.35 to 1.76)
mhc_social
1st
t(81.39) = -0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.09)
2st
t(105.98) = -1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.24 to 1.03)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(81.41) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.25 to 3.75)
2st
t(105.99) = -0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.42 to 2.67)
resilisnce
1st
t(82.46) = 0.65, p = 0.515, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.70)
2st
t(106.43) = 0.83, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.43)
social_provision
1st
t(86.06) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.16)
2st
t(106.99) = 1.89, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.40)
els_value_living
1st
t(80.37) = 1.85, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.65)
2st
t(105.35) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.68)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(80.96) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.43)
2st
t(105.74) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.77)
els
1st
t(78.69) = 2.55, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.30, 95% CI (0.71 to 5.79)
2st
t(103.75) = 1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.75 to 5.09)
social_connect
1st
t(75.98) = -0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-5.73 to 3.18)
2st
t(98.88) = -0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-7.21 to 2.67)
shs_agency
1st
t(80.74) = 1.00, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.49)
2st
t(105.60) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.09 to 4.37)
shs_pathway
1st
t(79.75) = 0.84, p = 0.405, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.63)
2st
t(104.86) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.56)
shs
1st
t(79.37) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.99 to 5.88)
2st
t(104.50) = 0.90, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.50 to 6.61)
esteem
1st
t(102.38) = -1.09, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.30)
2st
t(106.63) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st
t(88.66) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.81)
2st
t(106.95) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.56)
mlq_presence
1st
t(85.38) = 0.06, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.95)
2st
t(106.96) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.62)
mlq
1st
t(86.41) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.89 to 3.44)
2st
t(107.00) = 0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.05 to 4.77)
empower
1st
t(79.00) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.69)
2st
t(104.11) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.58)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(94.57) = 0.98, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.76)
2st
t(106.61) = 0.35, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.80)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(81.23) = -2.51, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.34 to -0.38)
2st
t(105.89) = -1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.81)
sss_affective
1st
t(77.90) = -1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.79 to 0.68)
2st
t(102.67) = -2.15, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 1.31, 95% CI (-4.11 to -0.16)
sss_behavior
1st
t(82.11) = -1.66, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-3.23 to 0.29)
2st
t(106.30) = -1.81, p = 0.073, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-4.02 to 0.18)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(77.12) = -0.66, p = 0.509, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.44 to 1.22)
2st
t(101.36) = -2.34, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-4.50 to -0.37)
sss
1st
t(76.27) = -1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-8.10 to 1.82)
2st
t(99.59) = -2.34, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.55, 95% CI (-12.03 to -0.99)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(52.88) = 1.16, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(50.57) = 0.85, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.78)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.69) = 0.73, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.53) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.93) = 1.08, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.56) = 2.54, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.92)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(48.40) = 1.67, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.83) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.82)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.08) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.00)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.71) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.35) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.00)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.12) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.47) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.37)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.48) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.14 to 1.11)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(43.01) = 0.74, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.84) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.97) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.26) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.15) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.84) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.19)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(42.15) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.35)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.67) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.21)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.48) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(55.29) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(46.22) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.34)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.49) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(45.02) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.69)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.30) = -1.11, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.54)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(49.60) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.01)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.39) = 0.82, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.46)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.76) = -1.67, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.18)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.83) = -1.15, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.39) = -1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.98) = -1.74, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(51.82) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(49.67) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.86)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.33) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.01)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.18) = -1.96, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.49) = -1.64, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.21)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.28) = 1.10, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(47.65) = -1.20, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.38)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.66) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.50)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(39.89) = -1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.41) = -1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.89 to 0.76)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(42.95) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.66 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(40.86) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.57)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.13) = 1.15, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.88)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.14) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.68)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.63) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.67)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.34) = -1.66, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.20)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.66) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.20)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(41.93) = 1.88, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.91)
els
1st vs 2st
t(40.89) = 1.52, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.74)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.67) = 0.70, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.51 to 3.13)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(41.83) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.38) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.54)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.20) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(54.07) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.89)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(45.62) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.97)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.01) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.38)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.51) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.04 to 2.06)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.03) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.92)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(48.77) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.05) = -1.01, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.51)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.53) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.24)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.46) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.97)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.18) = 2.01, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.06)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.80) = 0.80, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.68)
Plot
